Hybrid retrieval combines semantic generalization with exact lexical matching
I would combine them because dense embeddings and sparse retrieval fail in different ways. Dense embeddings are excellent at semantic similarity and paraphrases, but they can weaken exact matching for names, SKUs, error codes, abbreviations, model numbers, or rare domain terminology. Sparse retrieval preserves strong lexical evidence for those cases. Running both and fusing their candidate lists gives the system a broader recall envelope: dense handles meaning while sparse handles exact or highly discriminative terms. The trade-off is extra indexing, storage, and query work. A common mistake is assuming the dense model has learned every identifier exactly; in production search I want empirical evidence before removing lexical retrieval.
Dense retrieval is usually strongest for semantic paraphrases such as "laptop suitable for travel" and "portable notebook computer".
Sparse retrieval is often strongest for exact tokens such as "RTX 5090", "ERR_CONNECTION_RESET", or a product SKU.
Trade-off: hybrid search usually improves recall and robustness but increases index/storage footprint and query complexity.
Fusion method matters because dense and sparse scores can have different scales; rank-based fusion such as RRF avoids relying on directly comparable raw score magnitudes.
0-2 years experience
2-5 years experience
5-8 years experience
8+ years experience